B e f o r e :
(Sir Andrew Morritt)
| (1) HAMPSHIRE WASTE SERVICES LTD.
(2) SHEFFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD.
(3)SOUTH EAST LONDON COMBINED HEAT AND POWER LTD
(4) TYSELEY WASTE DISPOSAL LTD.
|- and -
|PERSONS INTENDING TO TRESPASS AND OR TRESPASSING UPON INCINERATOR SITES AT:
|(1) CHINEHAM, BASINGSTOKE, HAMPSHIRE
(2)MARCHWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, NORMANDY WAY, SOUTHAMPTON
(3)PORTSMOUTH INCINERATOR SITE, QUATREMAINE ROAD, PORTSMOUTH
(4)BERNARD ROAD, SHEFFIELD
(5)KENNELS SITE, LANDMANN WAY, LEWISHAM, LONDON
(6)JAMES ROAD, ADJACENT TO SMALL HEATH BYPASS BIRMINGHAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE 'GLOBAL DAY OF ACTION AGAINST INCINERATORS' (OR SIMILARLY DESCRIBED EVENT) ON OR AROUND 14 JULY 2003
Official Shorthand Writers and Tape Transcribers
Quality House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
MISS K. HOLLAND (instructed by Messrs. Pinsents, Birmingham) appeared on behalf of the Claimants.
Crown Copyright ©
"Each of the claimants owns and operates waste incinerator sites around the United Kingdom. The first claimant also has two further plants under construction. The operating plants are used to process and dispose of locally generated commercial and domestic waste. Energy produced by the incineration process is sold into the national grid. The claimants between them produce about 80 megawatts of electricity for distribution through the grid which is sufficient for the needs of approximately 84,000 homes. In recent years the claimants have suffered seriously damaging and costly invasions by trespassers who style themselves as environmental protesters. The invasions sometimes occur on a predetermined day following an intense period of Internet and other publicity. Such predetermined days are described by environmental protesters as Global Day of Action Against Incinerators."
"The failure to give the name of the defendant cannot now invalidate the proceedings, both because they are started by the issue of the claim form at the request of the claimant and because, unless the courts thinks otherwise, Rule 3.10 so provides. The obligations the overriding objective casts on the court are inconsistent with an undue reliance on form over substance. The proper application of Rule 3.20 is incompatible with a conclusion that the joinder of the defendant by description rather than by name is for that reason alone impermissible."
In Para.21 I continued:
"The crucial point, as it seems to me, is that the description used must be sufficiently certain so as to identify both those who are included and those who are not. If that test is satisfied, then it does not seem to me to matter that the description may apply to no one or to more than one person, nor that there is no further element of subsequent identification whether by service or otherwise."
I concluded in para.22:
"I can see no injustice to anyone if I make an order in the form sought but considerable potential for injustice to the claimant if I do not."
"(1) Where it appears to the court that there is a good reason to authorise service by a method not permitted by these Rules, the court may make an order permitting service by an alternative method.
(2) An application for an order permitting service by an alternative method -
(a) must be supported by evidence;
(b) may be made without notice.
(3) An order permitting service by an alternative method must specify -
(a) the method of service; and
(b) the date when the document will be deemed to be served."
"Service of the claim form in this action, this order and the witness statements and exhibits containing the evidence relied upon by the claimants by fixing the documents securely to posts in conspicuous places round the perimeters of the six sites be good and sufficient service. The said documents shall be deemed to be served on the date of such affixation at the six sites, such date to be verified by the completion of a certificate of service."
"An application for an order for service by an alternative method should be supported by evidence stating:
(1) the reason an order for an alternative method of service is sought, and
(2) what steps have been taken to serve by other permitted means."
Costs - presumably we just leave those where they are for the moment?
MISS HOLLAND: My Lord, yes. I have put them reserved in the order. There was one matter I should finally draw to your attention. It had been anticipated that the claim form and the application notice would have been issued this morning before the hearing. They have not been so, my Lord, I propose to include an undertaking to issue those in the order.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR: Thank you. Would you sign a draft of the order for the associate's benefit with the various amendments we have discussed?
MISS HOLLAND: Yes.